LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 317

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 317

Bylaws permit an individual who has completed three full terms (9
years) on the Commission on Theology and Church Relations as
an appointee of the President of the Synod is eligible to be elected
by a seminary faculty to serve a new three year term without a
break in his membership on the Commission.”

Opinion: The answer to this question is “no.” Bylaw 3.61, b,
states that “All members of all synodical boards and commissions
shall be ineligible for reelection Gr reappointment to the same board
or commission after serving a total of two successive six-year
elected terms or three successive appointed or elected three-year
terms, unless otherwise provided in the Bylaws.” The Commission
notes that no distinction is made or exception granted if the ap-
pointing or electing entity changes. While the person in question
may be appointed or elected to a position on another board or com-
mission (Bylaw 3.61, c), eligibility for service on the same board or
commission begins again after an interval of three or more years
(Bylaw 3.61, b).

Adopted May 17, 2001

Request for Evaluation of Constitution/Bylaws
Resource (01-2224)

The Commission, in response to requests made to the Office of
the Secretary of the Synod, provides the following brief commen-
tary regarding the publication, Flexible, Missional Constitution/By-
laws by Alan and Cheryl Klaas. The publication is intended to ad-
dress (1) concerns raised by congregations regarding difficulty
filling boards and committees, (2) disagreements over what a con-
gregation’s constitution allows or does not allow, (3) dated struc-
ture that is getting in the way of ministry, and (4) the lack of time
and energy on the part of congregations to undergo the years of
meetings required to examine and change existing constitutions and
bylaws. The publication offers helps to congregations to address
these concerns “in one day, not two years.’

While Bylaw 3.905 narrows the attention of the Commission
on Constitutional Matters to the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolu-
tions of the Synod, the Commission provides a brief response to
this request for a review of said document, given the fact that the
Commission also publishes its own “Guidelines for the Constitu-
tion and Bylaws of a Lutheran Congregation” to assist congrega-
tions in developing or revising their official documents. For the
most part the Commission will respond in a general manner based
upon the announced intentions of the authors.

(1) The publication intends to address concerns raised by congre-
gations regarding difficulty in filling boards and committees. It
recommends an organizational structure that centers most of the
decision-making in a “senior leadership group,” reserving over-
all direction and only major decisions such as church worker
calls or property matters to the voters’ assembly (the “twenty-
percenter decisions”). The Commission recognizes that, other
than the office of Pastor and the right of the congregation to
govern itself, the internal structure of a congregation is a matter
of self-determination, so long as existing laws for non-profit
charitable organizations are not violated. The Commission fur-
ther recognizes that in the cases of small or new congregations,
it can be futile to try to have boards and committees for every
purpose. The Commission also recognizes the propensity for
voters’ assemblies to get bogged down by too much detail. But
the Commission expresses caution that the structure that is
being suggested, like any system, may not suit every situation,
may lend itself to top-down leadership, and may in effect dis-
courage the members of a congregation from participation or

_even taking an active interest in the affairs of the congregation.

(2) The publication intends to address concerns about what a con-
gregation’s constitution allows or does not allow. It minimizes
the involvement of the congregation in the development of the
constitution, explaining that the congregation needs to make
“relatively few key decisions” (“about ten”) without any need to
discuss wording. It also provides a procedure for creating by-
laws that “accomplishes a great deal in a short period of time.”
The Commission expresses concern that the key documents of a
congregation are treated with such casual haste, suggesting that

whatever length of time it may take to do this properly is worth
the effort. The Commission also observes that the helps pro-
vided to address what should be allowed or not allowed, in-
tended to be general enough to reach a broader market of con-
gregations of varied denominational associations, fall short of
the specific help that congregations will need in developing
their documents. In the case of LCMS congregations, for ex-
ample, it will be necessary to do further study to learn of the
expectations associated with synodical membership.

(3) The publication intends to address what it calls dated structure
that gets in the way of ministry. It differentiates between
“churched culture churches” and “mission outpost churches,”
the former preoccupied with internal issues, the latter focusing
on the Great Commission. The Commission would share the
same concern whenever congregations fail to remember their
purpose. A congregation should periodically evaluate its struc-
ture to make certain that it enables rather than hampers its mis-
sion. The Commission would suggest, however, that, in cases
where a congregation has lost its sense of mission, more will
. likely be deficient than merely the structure of its operations.

(4) The publication intends to address a congregation’s lack of time
and energy to undergo a long and tedious process of developing
and adopting constitutions and bylaws. The Commission re-
sponds that this process need not be long and tedious. A small
committee of interested persons can be given the responsibility
to produce draft documents, after which the entire congregation
reviews and discusses them before their adoption. While the
process, therefore, need not take two years, whatever length of
time that may be necessary to do this important task carefully
and properly is worth the effort.

Adopted May 17, 2001

Questions Repeatedly Raised re Nominations Process
(01-2225)

Due to questions repeatedly raised regarding the consequences
for the election of President upon the death of Dr. A. L. Barry, the
Secretary of the Synod suggested that the Commission provide a
response to a series of questions for publication in Reporter. The
Commission provided the following responses.

Question 1: If an ordained minister dies after he has been nom-
inated for the office of President of the Synod by a voting congre-
gation, can such congregation nominate another candidate in place
of the deceased candidate?

Opinion: The answer is “no.” The Bylaws of the Synod make
no provision for such nominations.

Question 2: What happens if a candidate for the President of the
Synod dies and is one of the five ordained ministers receiving the
highest number of votes from the nominating ballots of the con-
gregations?

Opinion: Bylaw 3.961, c, provides that in the event of the death
of a candidate, the nominee having the next highest number of
votes shall become a candidate.

Question 3: Are the candidates for President of the Synod lim-
ited to the ordained ministers chosen in accord with the nominating
procedure set forth in Bylaws 3.961, a-d?

Qpinion: The answer is “no.” Bylaws 3.961, f and g, provide a
mechanism whereby the convention shall have the right to alter the
slate of candidates at the proper time by amendment. Briefly, the
procedure is:

(a) A delegate makes a motion to amend the slate of candidates for
President by the addition of another ordained minister.

(b) The motion is seconded.

(c) The delegates, by vote, adopt the motion to add the ordained
minister to the slate of candidates for President, deliberately ex-
cluding verbal characterizations and discussion of the motion.

(d) After all such amendments have been voted on, the convention
then ratifies the slate of candidates prior to the election for
President.

2004 Convention Workbook